I didn't say this was a criminal case - you are either a liar or a moron, or likely both. I pointed out that presumptions in law can be based on the reasoning that a person has intended the natural consequence of their actions. You aren't intellectually equipped to debate any of this.
What you say can be is not applicable here. Here you have inferred intent from the action, after inferring the action. This is effectively the same as calling it "presumption".
You argue as though a presumption is nothing more meaningful than a fart. You have no idea. The presumption of intent was confirmed by the facts, the facts in this case being the drug was in her system and she could not show that the cause wasn't her.
Drawing conclusions from presumption is essentially a fallacy. "Presence" does not confirm "intent". Nor does a failure to collect evidence establishing the more likely than not source.
Ignorance seems to be your most likely excuse. WADA speaks of intent requiring athlete knowledge that athlete conduct violates a rule, or risks doing so. Athletes are not required to know which banned substances may be in USDA approved foods. Now you fabricate a new goalpost: did Houlihan choose to take the drug?
Athletes are required to know what is on the list. That is why banned substances are listed. WADA just does it for fun? Are you really that thick? Ignorance of what is listed is not an excuse. If it was Houlihan could have argued it by saying she had no idea nandrolone was banned. She didn't.
No one is talking about a failure to know what is on the list, but whether they know if banned substances are present in their USDA approved food.
Evidence has been provided to you countless times. Your childish trolling that it's either "0" or "nonsense" without any argument whatsoever does not make it undone. It just shows that you have 0 interest in any serious exchange.
It does. If not then it isn't a sound decision. But you wouldn't know anything about that.
No wonder you studied to be a lawyer but ended up as a lowly journo.
The CAS decision does not show that she did. It only shows that nandrolone was in her body in a way that the CAS didn't believe was possible to have happened by accident.
You should stick to subjects you understand; hip replacements and insomnia.
Try to follow the logic. If the drug wasn't accepted as being in her body by accident then what does that leave?
LOL no you don't. At all. You argue against all the facts, then turn around and pretend they don't exist. And repeat. And repeat.
On the other hand, you pretend that the banned doper was railroaded - completely baseless of course, without any facts whatsoever. And invent nonsense, such as that the experts were deceitful and corrupt. Also without any facts whatsoever. Just based on your imagination. Not even the banned doper, or her lawyer, went there. But then there is you, the anonymous letsrun nobody trolling along happily. Carry on.
I let the facts speak for themselves. Even the CAS said intent was presumed, then deemed, while providing no evidentiary support.
It's funny you say you let the facts speak for themselves. That's what CAS said as well yet you come to completely opposite conclusions.
Athletes are required to know what is on the list. That is why banned substances are listed. WADA just does it for fun? Are you really that thick? Ignorance of what is listed is not an excuse. If it was Houlihan could have argued it by saying she had no idea nandrolone was banned. She didn't.
No one is talking about a failure to know what is on the list, but whether they know if banned substances are present in their USDA approved food.
Since there was no evidence confirming banned substances were in her food she had to have taken the drug. Now we can all go home.
Evidence has been provided to you countless times. Your childish trolling that it's either "0" or "nonsense" without any argument whatsoever does not make it undone. It just shows that you have 0 interest in any serious exchange.
Is it countless because it is zero?
Your fourfold nonsense was not evidence of intent. There was no evidence of intent in the CAS report, nor in any and all of the countless responses to my pointing out this basic fact.
There can be no exchange because you have nothing to give.
I let the facts speak for themselves. Even the CAS said intent was presumed, then deemed, while providing no evidentiary support.
It's funny you say you let the facts speak for themselves. That's what CAS said as well yet you come to completely opposite conclusions.
The CAS told me that intent was a presumption, rather than fact based. I came to the exact same conclusion as the CAS: intent was presumed then deemed.
No wonder you studied to be a lawyer but ended up as a lowly journo.
The CAS decision does not show that she did. It only shows that nandrolone was in her body in a way that the CAS didn't believe was possible to have happened by accident.
You should stick to subjects you understand; hip replacements and insomnia.
Try to follow the logic. If the drug wasn't accepted as being in her body by accident then what does that leave?
An arbitrary subjective decision based on an incomplete set of facts.
You argue as though a presumption is nothing more meaningful than a fart. You have no idea. The presumption of intent was confirmed by the facts, the facts in this case being the drug was in her system and she could not show that the cause wasn't her.
Drawing conclusions from presumption is essentially a fallacy. "Presence" does not confirm "intent". Nor does a failure to collect evidence establishing the more likely than not source.
"Drawing conclusions from presumption is essentially a fallacy."
Wrong. As always. As I pointed out earlier, the presumption in law is that a person has intended the natural consequences of their actions. That isn't a "fallacy" but the logical inference that those things that naturally occur as a result of your actions were intended.
If the most probable explanation for the presence of a banned substance in an athlete's body is that the athlete took that substance in some form it must therefore have been an intentional act.
It's funny you say you let the facts speak for themselves. That's what CAS said as well yet you come to completely opposite conclusions.
The CAS told me that intent was a presumption, rather than fact based. I came to the exact same conclusion as the CAS: intent was presumed then deemed.
You leave the facts out that CAS based its decision on. You always do. The presumption of intent was established by her inability to rebut it. There was a positive test for which she could provide no convincing explanation other than that she took the drug herself.
This post was edited 17 seconds after it was posted.
Since there was no evidence confirming banned substances were in her food she had to have taken the drug. Now we can all go home.
But there was evidence supporting intact boar making it into the food supply and that pig farmers were feeding the pigs soy.
There was no evidence of athlete intent to engage in conduct she knew was a violation, or knew was risky.
You are at home, in your basement.
The evidence presented as her defence was rejected on the basis it failed the balance of probabilities. That is what a court does. Your interpretation fails that test and therefore remains unsubstantiated and against what is deemed probable. Since she failed to show accidental contamination as the cause that only leaves intentional doping.